Because the majority of people under the age of 45 had no connection to many of the properties and even less even knew/care about the 'golden age of hollywood'. Singing in the Rain is something they'd have to google to understand why it's even in there...
Even the sponsorship they would have paid for through the nose even though there were still scenes of WB, MGM, Paramount and 20th century(prior to ownership)..
The problem is the ride was about celebrating the hollywood magic/auroa and some of it's key highlights. That formula is nice and stable as long as you are looking at a period that is timeless. So that content will be interesting/admired/memorable for a long long time.
Looks like they repainted a Roger Rabbit character!We could have a good Toontown..If everyone liked Bonkers....That's why they made him to replace Roger due to Spielberg's Amblin ownership.
As far as I know there was nothing culturally insensitive in GMR unless you are so anti-gun that the very depiction of them is offensive. Also they could easily have replaced some of the scenes based on older movies which aren't that well remembered by todays audiences with more recent movies popular with the current generation.
I strongly disagree. This assumes that properties like Aliens, Indiana Jones, and the Wizard of Oz have no resonance with modern audiences, which would certainly come as a shock to every modern entertainment conglomerate, which relies on such intellectual properties more then ever before in Hollywood history. It also assumes that Busby Berkeley was somehow fresh and relevant to audiences in ‘89 and ignoresthe fact that Disney recently built rides based on films that are older then almost anything in the GMR.
i don’t think that GMR closed down for an particular 1 reason. I think it was a mix of a bunch of different things that came together to create a fairly unique mix of problems.
Just gonna say, yeah I didn’t know many of the movies of GMR. I knew a good amount of them but some I did not know/have any opinions about. Or just knew by name but did not know anything about the movie
I'm sure things could have been improved, but it would depend what they judged the issues with the attraction to be as to whether it would have been worth trying to salvage the ride. If there was a more fundamental issue about the style of the experience (large, slow-moving vehicles on a wide track moving into set pieces based on movies, for example) or costs of running it that were hard to get around, then I can understand why they might have judged it better to just start over with a new attraction rather than to keep trying to make incremental changes that might improve things a little.
Or they could still do this exact idea with a cheaper to maintain/higher capacity ride system.
Experiencing GMR as a kid in 1989 and the next 20 years as a teen and young adult (except for a brief walkthrough several years ago, I haven't been to DHS since 2010) were three types of movies in my "catalogue:"
